I'd like to pose questions to users of Bitdefender paid anti-virus

[Littlebits]

Most AV vendors are getting too aggressive with PUP's, free software developers usually don't get enough donations to keep up development and are forced to use ad-supported installers like OpenCandy. Like Freemake Video Converter for example, it uses OpenCandy installer but allows you to manually uncheck all adware offers but is still detected by MBAM, Avast and probably most other vendors. What is even stranger is I have all connections blocked to OpenCandy servers with HostsMan and still it is detected even though it can not connect or install any adware offers even if I forget to uncheck. To myself this is too aggressive and is not fare to these freeware developers. Avast allows you to change settings to not detect PUP's which I do recommend to change if you want to install ad-supported freeware because they will get blocked even though that are not installing anything and you can choose what to install. ESET has got even more aggressive detecting ad-supported installers. I believe you can also change this setting as well. Most AV's have to be manually configured to allow these ad-supported installers to run or the installation of the freeware product will fail.

Of coarse I hate adware but it is necessary to keep software free, without adware we would have to buy all software and nothing would be free. These AV vendors are making very hard for these freeware developers to continue their work, sometimes the only financial support that these developers get is from their adware sponsors.

In general adware installers like OpenCandy should not be detected at all, if the user forgets to uncheck the adware offers then the adware offers should be detected as PUP's not the adware installer itself.

So would everyone like to just deal with PUP's and tell these AV vendors to quit detecting them on default settings or would everyone like to start paying for all software that they want to use?

I have installed many ad-supported software and not once got anything else because I pay attention to the installer.
If ignorant users don't pay attention then that is better for us because the developer get his support and product stays free.

Enjoy!!

 

[yigido]

I agreed to you good point for PUP's and freewares.

 

[Terry Ganzi]

Most AV vendors are getting too aggressive with PUP's, free software developers usually don't get enough donations to keep up development and are forced to use ad-supported installers like OpenCandy. Like Freemake Video Converter for example, it uses OpenCandy installer but allows you to manually uncheck all adware offers but is still detected by MBAM, Avast and probably most other vendors. What is even stranger is I have all connections blocked to OpenCandy servers with HostsMan and still it is detected even though it can not connect or install any adware offers even if I forget to uncheck. To myself this is too aggressive and is not fare to these freeware developers. Avast allows you to change settings to not detect PUP's which I do recommend to change if you want to install ad-supported freeware because they will get blocked even though that are not installing anything and you can choose what to install. ESET has got even more aggressive detecting ad-supported installers. I believe you can also change this setting as well. Most AV's have to be manually configured to allow these ad-supported installers to run or the installation of the freeware product will fail.

Of coarse I hate adware but it is necessary to keep software free, without adware we would have to buy all software and nothing would be free. These AV vendors are making very hard for these freeware developers to continue their work, sometimes the only financial support that these developers get is from their adware sponsors.

In general adware installers like OpenCandy should not be detected at all, if the user forgets to uncheck the adware offers then the adware offers should be detected as PUP's not the adware installer itself.

So would everyone like to just deal with PUP's and tell these AV vendors to quit detecting them on default settings or would everyone like to start paying for all software that they want to use?

I have installed many ad-supported software and not once got anything else because I pay attention to the installer.
If ignorant users don't pay attention then that is better for us because the developer get his support and product stays free.

Enjoy!!

Well spoken,i can see you do your own research & stay away from the pill name F.P=follow pattern.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Bitdefender is AV which i would suggest you to install if you want [/QUOTE)

- your friend girl beg your wise advice to help her to fix her computer
- gain more money from naive customers
- find a good reason to reformat your system

 

[MrExplorer]

You gave very good reason.

 

[ifacedown]

I will answer for what I know

2. Not enough options (eg. disable wallet)

5. Heavy impact, slow boot

6. I prefer Emsisoft Antimalware, same engine but lighter

Yup, Emsisoft uses the latest

I will answer for what I know

2. Not enough options (eg. disable wallet)

5. Heavy impact, slow boot

6. I prefer Emsisoft Antimalware, same engine but lighter

Yes, Emsisoft uses the latest BD engine and signatures, in perfect sync with BD. AND, Emsisoft has its own engine that detects something BD cannot!

 

[Rahadian Putra]

Totally agree with Littlebits, that really make sense

 

[Raul90]

Yup, Emsisoft uses the latest


Yes, Emsisoft uses the latest BD engine and signatures, in perfect sync with BD. AND, Emsisoft has its own engine that detects something BD cannot!

ALL AV's have the tendency to detect and miss something somewhere sometime. That is a fact. There is no AV that can claim truthfully that it has a detection rate of 100%. Those who claim that they have ain't true.

 

[Raul90]

Just tried to access the Bitdefender customer support just to send them an inquiry in preperation for my trial of Bitdefender IS and I got this reply using : "customerservice@bitdefender.com"

From: Bitdefender Customer Care Department
Subject: Email address not monitored

Dear Customer,

Thank you for your message.
Please be advised that this inbox is not being monitored and you will not receive a response.
If you already have an open support ticket, please reply to the last message you received from us.
If you do not have an open support ticket please contact us through the contact form at http://www.bitdefender.com/support/contact-us.html
Once we receive your message we will respond in the shortest time possible,

Thank you for your understanding,
Bitdefender Customer Care

Wow....first BD forums going into perpetually silent mode and then "customerservice@bitdefender.com" -- no response etc etc. What's next..?

 

[ifacedown]

ALL AV's have the tendency to detect and miss something somewhere sometime. That is a fact. There is no AV that can claim truthfully that it has a detection rate of 100%. Those who claim that they have ain't true.

Ahm, I think you don't get me.

What I mean for this is that Emsisoft developers develop their own inhouse engine to detect malwares that are not detected by the Bitdefender engine that they are using.

Therefore, I am not saying that Emsisoft detects better than BitDefender Antivirus.

Let me quote what I mean:

Our dual-scanner is actually MUCH FASTER AND LIGHTER than most single-engine products. We also avoid loading any signatures (fingerprints) of engine A that are not needed because Engine B already detects them.

==

Engine A refers to their inhouse antimalware engine.
Engine B refers to BD engine.

I hope you get what I mean now.

 

[Raul90]

What I mean for this is that Emsisoft developers develop their own inhouse engine to detect malwares that are not detected by the Bitdefender engine that they are using.

The post was in reference to BD and Emsisoft which is detection. Both of your preference as compared to BD is Emsisoft (same as me ha ha). But my reply was just (NOT taking sides to a particular AV or vendor) a reminder that signatures/definitions aside --all AV has the tendency to,

detect and miss something somewhere sometime. That is a fact. There is no AV that can claim truthfully that it has a detection rate of 100%. Those who claim that they have ain't true

Those that claim (like this one, a 99.9% detection, http://malwaretips.com/threads/avira-claims-to-have-99-99-detection-rate.23907/page-2#post-179878) and I remember reading something like Comodo did a 100% somewhere --will try to find it) are just overrating their product much like a con-waiter/waitress doing chit padding at a full restaurant.

 

[Raul90]

Just tried to access the Bitdefender customer support just to send them an inquiry in preperation for my trial of Bitdefender IS and I got this reply using : "customerservice@bitdefender.com"




Wow....first BD forums going into perpetually silent mode and then "customerservice@bitdefender.com" -- no response etc etc. What's next..?

I just tried the "http://www.bitdefender.com/support/contact-us.html" and there seems to be a problem with the web page. I cannot supply my license. It's funny as when I typed my email address a "gmail.com" appeared on the slot. There was nothing I can do to correct it. Can't type or paste over it. The "choose file" and the "submit" also is NOT working.

https://www.facebook.com/bitdefender/posts/613394345403111?stream_ref=10

 

[ifacedown]

The post was in reference to BD and Emsisoft which is detection. Both of your preference as compared to BD is Emsisoft (same as me ha ha). But my reply was just (NOT taking sides to a particular AV or vendor) a reminder that signatures/definitions aside --all AV has the tendency to,



Those that claim (like this one, a 99.9% detection, http://malwaretips.com/threads/avira-claims-to-have-99-99-detection-rate.23907/page-2#post-179878) and I remember reading something like Comodo did a 100% somewhere --will try to find it) are just overrating their product much like a con-waiter/waitress doing chit padding at a full restaurant.

By plain reading, you still don't get exactly my point.

By saying that they make Engine A to supplement/complement Engine B, I am NOT saying in any way (didn't even cross my mind) to claim that Engine A + Engine B would then detect 90% of malware... or even 70%... or even 10%, or 100% if you like.

What I was trying to say is, they make Engine A to complement Engine B. When you scan using Emsisoft products, detected malware names will have either (A) or (B) in the end, which pertains to the engine that has detected the malware.

So, I was pertaining that Engine A supplements Engine B. You generalized my former statement taking it to mean that everything Engine B missed would be caught by Engine A ---so far from what I was thinking.

Thanks.

 

[Raul90]

By plain reading, you still don't get exactly my point.

By saying that they make Engine A to supplement/complement Engine B, I am NOT saying in any way (didn't even cross my mind) to claim that Engine A + Engine B would then detect 90% of malware... or even 70%... or even 10%, or 100% if you like.

What I was trying to say is, they make Engine A to complement Engine B. When you scan using Emsisoft products, detected malware names will have either (A) or (B) in the end, which pertains to the engine that has detected the malware.

So, I was pertaining that Engine A supplements Engine B. You generalized my former statement taking it to mean that everything Engine B missed would be caught by Engine A ---so far from what I was thinking.

-- Yeah I got that. Emsisofts is "in perfect synch with BD" --with its latest BD engine and signatures. Again the comment was in reference to just this and NOT what you are pertaining and NOT any particular AV or vendor or signature or database but ALL AV's --thus the wording RE: ALL AV's,

...from your original post/reply to SifhX..
Emsisoft has its own engine that detects something BD cannot!

--- AGAIN NOT in reference to a particular AV or vendor or (if I may add) engine and signature. Not favoring Emsisoft or BD or ANY vendor for that matter but solely just in detection or capability to detect malware whether it be anyone's engine or signature or database but ALL AV's with whatever engine or database or signature and NOT if one supplements the other or not. Just SOLELY on detection of all AV's in general based on your example of as you, say Engine A and Engine B.

I was pertaining that Engine A supplements Engine B. You generalized my former statement taking it to mean that everything Engine B missed would be caught by Engine A ---so far from what I was thinking.

--NO, got that wrong there. As I mentioned the comment/post was SOLELY for this(and again NOT in reference to not just ANY AV or vendor or engine or database or signature BUT SOLELY on detection of ALL AV's in general. I don't give a ____ about whose engine supplements who or whose is better or not.
I was posting about ALL AV's in general in reference to detection and based on your example of Engine A and Engine B as you say. The link to the Avira post was an example of a claim that they said/claim is true but no one would agree. (still to find the Comodo one).

So for you (so it will not hurt your delicate feelings about what you post) I will re-word it in whole...

ALL AV's (whether it be their own or uses other engine or whatever engine or signature or database they are using or whatever or whoever supplements who or whoever claims that his detection is better whether it be 90%, or 70%, or 10% or even 100% if you like...) have the tendency to detect and miss something somewhere sometime. That is a fact. There is no AV that can claim truthfully that it has a detection rate of 100%. Those who claim that they have ain't true.

I think you "thought" that I was commenting on Emsisoft's and BD engine and how Emsisoft supplements BD and "thought" I generalized ALL your comments. And then "felt" I was questioning your post about how Emsisoft uses the latest BD engine and signatures which is in perfect sync with BD or how Emsisoft is in perfect synch with BD.....

You are pertaining to what I did not comment on.

Well fwiw, and again it's not what you pertain(--Emsisoft's supplements BD thing) but just one. Again, I JUST commented on,

...from your original post/reply to SifhX..
Emsisoft has its own engine that detects something BD cannot!

Just THIS and NOT what you mentioned you were pertaining...JUST THIS,

...from your original post/reply to SifhX..
Emsisoft has its own engine that detects something BD cannot!

It was SOLELY on(again NOT in reference to not just ANY AV or vendor or engine or database or signature or who complements who or supplements who or whose is better or whose detection is better --even their methods!)...again SOLELY on detection of ALL AV's in general.

To reword for you,

ALL AV's (whether it be their own or uses other engine or whatever engine or signature or database they are using or whatever or whoever supplements who or whoever claims that his detection is better whether it be 90%, or 70%, or 10% or even 100% if you like...) have the tendency to detect and miss something somewhere sometime. That is a fact. There is no AV that can claim truthfully that it has a detection rate of 100%. Those who claim that they have ain't true.

I hope you get what I mean now. It's all there. You keep bubbling on what you pertain etc etc explaining it to me WHEN the very first comment/reply from me based on was worded "ALL AV's..."

You keep to imply on something I did not comment on.

So I hope you get what I mean now.

 

[ifacedown]

You keep to imply on something I did not comment on.

-- Well, I am sorry if I have misunderstood you.

 

[Raul90]

You keep to imply on something I did not comment on.

-- Well, I am sorry if I have misunderstood you.

Oh let's move on from this and have a beer or two. We just did not "get" each other.

 

[ifacedown]

Oh let's move on from this and have a beer or two. We just did not "get" each other.

Cheers! Red Wine here.

 

[Raul90]

Cheers! Red Wine here.

I'm a BUD lover KING of Beers!

 

[juhful]

-- Yeah I got that. Emsisofts is "in perfect synch with BD" --with its latest BD engine and signatures. Again the comment was in reference to just this and NOT what you are pertaining and NOT any particular AV or vendor or signature or database but ALL AV's --thus the wording RE: ALL AV's,



--- AGAIN NOT in reference to a particular AV or vendor or (if I may add) engine and signature. Not favoring Emsisoft or BD or ANY vendor for that matter but solely just in detection or capability to detect malware whether it be anyone's engine or signature or database but ALL AV's with whatever engine or database or signature and NOT if one supplements the other or not. Just SOLELY on detection of all AV's in general based on your example of as you, say Engine A and Engine B.

--NO, got that wrong there. As I mentioned the comment/post was SOLELY for this(and again NOT in reference to not just ANY AV or vendor or engine or database or signature BUT SOLELY on detection of ALL AV's in general. I don't give a ____ about whose engine supplements who or whose is better or not.
I was posting about ALL AV's in general in reference to detection and based on your example of Engine A and Engine B as you say. The link to the Avira post was an example of a claim that they said/claim is true but no one would agree. (still to find the Comodo one).

So for you (so it will not hurt your delicate feelings about what you post) I will re-word it in whole...


I think you "thought" that I was commenting on Emsisoft's and BD engine and how Emsisoft supplements BD and "thought" I generalized ALL your comments. And then "felt" I was questioning your post about how Emsisoft uses the latest BD engine and signatures which is in perfect sync with BD or how Emsisoft is in perfect synch with BD.....

You are pertaining to what I did not comment on.

Well fwiw, and again it's not what you pertain(--Emsisoft's supplements BD thing) but just one. Again, I JUST commented on,



Just THIS and NOT what you mentioned you were pertaining...JUST THIS,



It was SOLELY on(again NOT in reference to not just ANY AV or vendor or engine or database or signature or who complements who or supplements who or whose is better or whose detection is better --even their methods!)...again SOLELY on detection of ALL AV's in general.

To reword for you,


I hope you get what I mean now. It's all there. You keep bubbling on what you pertain etc etc explaining it to me WHEN the very first comment/reply from me based on was worded "ALL AV's..."

You keep to imply on something I did not comment on.

So I hope you get what I mean now.

I don't believe it was Comodo with the 100% claim, I think it was Panda

 

[Raul90]

I don't believe it was Comodo with the 100% claim, I think it was Panda

Oh sorry, I forgot about looking it up(still)....

Your are right on the buck! Press release from Panda below.
http://press.pandasecurity.com/news...e-in-av-comparatives-most-comprehensive-test/

I think this is where I saw the 100% detection claim not a press release

http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/caa/free-scan.php?prod=caa&af=1726_5b